Loading...
06-18-1986 Q o CITY OF EDGEWATER PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD PUBLIC HEARING JUNE 18, 1986, 7:00 P.M. COMMUNITY CENTER Minutes Chairman Wheeler called to order the public hearing June 18, 1986 at 7:00 P.M. in the Community Center. This hearing had been recessed June 4, 1986 until now. ROLL CALL Members present were: Jake Wheeler, George Quaggin, Fred Finn, Paul Loeffler, Billy Klein and Nancy Blazi. Also present were Jose' Alvarez, City Attorney, Attorney Steve Lengauer, Attorney Allen Watts, Lynne Plaskett, Planning Assistant, Jan Morris, Secretary and several residents. Board member James Mackie was excused. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING OF CALDWELL PROPERTY PRESENTLY ZONED R-l Mr. Wheeler asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak? Mr. Bob Garthwaite, 10 Lee Drive questioned Attorney Alvarez about the court case and how much of the summary judgement was in the City's favor. Attorney Alvarez replied seventy five percent of it was in favor of the City. However, certain items were left open for suit and the summary judgement could still be appealed. He added the summary judgement is to let us arrive at a compromise which has to be done at a public hearing. Attorney Allen Watts, Mr. Caldwell's representative, said he had discussed each of the points brought up by the residents of Silver Ridge at the last hearing. Mr. Caldwell agreed with no access from Silver Ridge. The combined buffer of the utility easement and natural vegetation making it a forty five foot buffer, Mr. Caldwell agreed with provided the vegetation buffer could overlap into the rear yards of the lots on the north side of the development. This would mean the set backs would have to be modified. Attorney Caldwell said twenty percent of the project would be one bedroom with seven hundred fifty square feet and the other eighty percent would be two bedrooms with nine hundred square feet or greater. He added Mr. Caldwell had agreed to take a twenty five percent reduction in density to two hundred and sixty units. Mr. Caldwell had agreed to have this written into the zoning, that would be ten units per acre. He also agreed to roll the density from the north to the south allowing duplexes adjoining Silver Ridge. Attorney Watts added they will apply the reduction in density to the north side of the project going south with the higher density. Attorney Watts said Mr. Caldwell had agreed to have all this written into the zoning so that if ownership changed it would still apply. Mr. Bob Garthwaite expressed his disappointment with these plans. He said the land is zoned R-l; he has room to build two units per acre. This is no compromise. Their plan is totally unacceptable. Mrs. Shirley Garthwaite, 10 Lee Drive, said in answer to Mr. Watts regarding duplexes on the north side by Silver Ridge, the zoning was a little different at that time. She added Mr. Caldwell purchased the property with the zoning being R-l. She stated the abutting neighbors were never notified that the property was being rezoned from R-l to RR-PUD. Mr. Steve Siciliano, 4 Lee D.rive, approve of the forty five foot buffer but was concerned about the two ends of the ridge, there is nothing there to prevent the people from exiting and coming into the Silver Ridge development. He recommended that the entire road south of Silver Ridge, on the north side of the proposed development be nothing but private property so the people cannot be driving through to Silver Ridge. Mrs. Mercedes Hoffman, 208 Lee Drive, expressed her opposition to the twenty percent one bedroom apartments with the seven hundred fifty square feet. She added this should be single family. o o Mr. Jimmie Newell, 2450 South Ridgewood, said if he is putting single family across from Silver Ridge, I feel they should put them along the east side, along side of us. I haven't heard anything about what is going to separate them from our park. Mr. Larry Perkins, 3 Silver Circle, expressed his opposition to putting in duplexes and quadplexes. He said the Board needs to consider whether the fire department can handle two story apartments. The police department is asking for more money because they can't keep personnel and what about the recreational areas. Mrs. Kennedy 205 Lee Drive, expressed her opposition to the seven hundred fifty square footage units. She reminded the Board about the development north of Silver Ridge where it was suppose to be twelve hundred square feet and they talked the Board into going with one thousand square feet. Then they wanted to put on screen porches and the hassle over it. She added if we build a house we have to build it according to regulations and I think that should apply here. Mr. Garthwaite spoke again referring to the site plan and the amount of duplexes and quadplexes. He said why do we have to consider two hundred sixty units, that is too much density. We don't need it. Lynne Plaskett, Planning Assistant said the first two hundred sixty feet on u.S. 1 is zoned B-3, there would not be any residences there. She showed the audience the entrance off U. S. 1. Mr. Edward H. Grieger, 7 Silver Circle, said if the north side is left open people will go right through there. No one is going to stop him. Attorney Watts said they could vacate that section of the street, take the title to the middle of the street on each of those lots on the north then they could get to that most western lot by a drive way off the corner. He added he really had no objection to that because he did not want them thinking they were trying to slip something through. He said if you think this is an improvement and if the City Commission wants to vacate the street, I would certainly agree to that. Mr. Steve Siciliano spoke again saying he lived on that corner in Silver Ridge, and knew for a fact if this is not blocked off, p~ople would be driving right through there. He added this is where he was proposing that this entire strip be private property. Attorney Watts said he did not see any problem with vacating the western most part of the street so that it is private property all across there. He asked if they have a problem on the east side because that is the way you get out. Attorney Watts summarized the issues brought up. He said he thought it was best to come back here and try to make some sort of a compromise but they could not go all the way to R-l. He said one comment was made on how do we guarantee that when this gets to the site plan that we keep our word about rolling the density to the south end of the project and any reduction in density come on the north end. He added your requirements for rezoning submittal are pretty sketchy under your ordinance. He suggested that from some of the comments you have had you might want to take a look at that ordinance and also at such things as your seven hundred fifty square foot minimum that nobody seems to be happy with. But, never- theless it is the law and that is what we drew it according to. We don't have any plans to build all seven hundred fifty units, that is why we said we would make eighty percent bigger than that. He went on to say on the north edge he did not think single family was the appropriate use because then you have just transported the problem a half block south. Then you have single family lots looking out on quadplexes, so what we thought, the reason for the duplexes there. Maybe they should be larger lots. Maybe that is the way to make the density adjustable. We thought the logical transition of uses would be from single family, buffer, duplex, street, then you get into the true multiple family area. I thought this was a good plan. The ultimate judgement is yours. If you think there are ways we can improve it we are willingly to listen. Mr. Donald Ray, 204 Lee Drive, said the Planning Board are the ones who have the responsibility for determining the progress or regress of the way we think about Edgewater. We would like to see this place develop as something we can be proud of and most importantly be developed so that when our generations come behind us there will be something left. He added the Board should seriously consider what this gentleman is offering. I think we are making a mistake of giving too much. Ms. Norma Perkins, 3 Silver Circle, asked if there was consideration of green space? Will this be families, will there be children? She said children of any age are going to need space. Will there be space provided for them to play? -2- Planning and Zoning Minutes Public Hearing, June 18, 1986 o o Ms. Charlotte Williams, 201 Lee Drive, said she would like to know why Mr. Caldwell won't be willing to put all single family homes in there and charge a price where he could make the same amount of profit. The homes would sell and the people would be more willing to invest in that kind of property. Mr. Garthwaite expressed his opposition to this plan once again. He added I hope we come up with a good decent compromise, not only for Mr. Caldwell but for the citizens of Edgewater. Chairman Wheeler asked if anyone else wanted to speak, if not may we have a motion to close the public hearing. Mrs. Blazi made a motion to close the public hearing and Mr. Loeffler seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 6-0. Chairman Wheeler opened the meeting. He called for comments from the Board. Mrs. Blazi said she had prepared a statement she would like to read (attached). Mrs. Blazi made a motion that the Board recommend to the City Council a rezoning be given to this that would increase the number of single family units to a maximum of one hundred fifty three and the lot sizes and square footage of each unit should be the same as currently permitted in R-2A zoning. That would be about one thousand square foot minimum houses and lots seventy five by one hundred feet. Mr. Finn seconded the motion. Attorney Alvarez said so that the record is clear there were approximately six points presented by the neighborhood and Mr. Caldwell has agreed to those points. Are those included or not in the motion, Mrs. Blazi? Mrs. Blazi replied my motion is to zone it single family... Attorney Alvarez said no, my question is the issues on the buffer, width of the buffer, the entrance, the covenants run with the land and whichever other ones. He added the density I want to keep isolated for the moment. I am only addressing my clarification under discussion to those issues and those will go to the City Council with the recommendation as an agreement. I am asking this for the record, now is there any discrepancy to those statements? Mrs. Blazi said we are talking about an access to U.S., 1 which I would agree to, a combined buffer of forty five feet, which probably would not be necessary if this is going to be single family and the others are all dealing with the seven hundred fifty foot houses. Attorney Alvarez said the second point of clarification is we are not really considering a rezoning to a specific classification. What we are doing here is trying to determine if a concept including the items proposed by the neighbors and an agreeable density can be reached and agreed on. And, if that is the case the property will be zoned pursuant to a court order which will contain those agreements. Now, your motion is to allow a maximum of one hundred fifty three units, single family units, one thousand square feet minimum houses with seventy five by one hundred foot lots. Mr. Wheeler added with a twenty five foot front, twenty five foot rear and ten foot side set backs. Attorney Alvarez said he would like to suggest that the Chairman abstain from voting on this issue since he owns property in Silver Ridge and the decision could effect the value. Some of the residents of Silver Ridge objected to this. Mrs. Blazi said her motion was to recommend to the City Council that they place a maximum of one hundred fifty three units with a minimum of one thousand square footage on the house and seventy five by one hundred foot lot size minimum twenty five foot natural buffer between this property and Silver Ridge and the access be off U. S. 1. Mr. Garthwaite wanted the motion clarified to say definitely no access through Silver Ridge, which Mrs. Blazi did. Mr. Quaggin had a question on the motion. He said according to his records they were pursuing R-4 and we are going R-2A. Attorney Alvarez answered the petition Mr. Quaggin is looking at was from back in 1981. He said what they were voting on now was the items Mrs. Blazi had placed on the recommendation. Whether it includes R-2A lot sizes, maybe R-3 density, that is irrelevant We are talking about a project concept. Mr. Wheeler called for a roll call vote on the motion. Motion DENIED 3-2. Mr. Wheeler abstained from voting. -3- Planning and Zoning Minutes Public Hearing June 18, 1986 .- o o Mr. Wheeler asked if anyone else wanted to make a motion. Mr. Quaggin made a motion that the Board rezone this property to R-2. Mr. Klein seconded the motion. Mrs. Blazi said she was under the impression we were not putting an actual zoning on this, we were putting a density cap. Does he mean he wants one hundred thirty three single family units instead of one hundred fifty three? Attorney Alvarez asked R-2 meaning one hundred thirty three units as opposed to one hundred fifty three. Mr. Quaggin said exactly. Mr. Wheeler called for a vote. Motion CARRIED 4-1. Mr. Wheeler abstained from voting. There being no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Klein made a motion that the meeting be adjourned. Mr. Loeffler seconded the motion. Meeting adjourned at 8:20 P.M. Minutes respectfully submitted by: Jan Morris -4- Planning and Zoning Minutes Public Hearing, June 18, 1986